Scribd
Upload
119 views1 page

Board of Directors vs. Tan

The document discusses a court case regarding the nullification of an election for the board of directors of an association. The court had previously nullified the original election and ordered a new election following the association's constitution and bylaws. However, the notice for the new election was only given two days prior rather than the required five days. Therefore, the court ruled that the new election was also null and void due to insufficient notice based on the association's governing documents.

Uploaded by

G S
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
119 views1 page

Board of Directors vs. Tan

The document discusses a court case regarding the nullification of an election for the board of directors of an association. The court had previously nullified the original election and ordered a new election following the association's constitution and bylaws. However, the notice for the new election was only given two days prior rather than the required five days. Therefore, the court ruled that the new election was also null and void due to insufficient notice based on the association's governing documents.

Uploaded by

G S
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Meetings; Stockholders’/Members’ Meeting

Board of Directors vs. Tan

Facts: On 17 January 1957, John de Castillo et al., commenced a suit declaring the meeting
electing the BOD of herein petitioner as null and void before the CFI. On 11 February, the Court
rendered judgment declaring the election null and void, ordering the defendants to call for and
hold another election in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the association and the
Corporation Law.
In compliance with the order, another election was scheduled on March 28 at 5:30. On
March 27, the plaintiff filed an ex-parte motion alleging that the meeting is composed of the
same people that had conducted and supervised the previously nullified meeting; that the
election to be conducted did not comply with the 5 day notice requirement required by the by-
laws and the constitution of the association, since the notice was posted and sent out only on
March 26 and the election was to be held on March 28.
Issue: Whether the election of the members of the board of directors of the SMB Workers
Savings and Loan Association, Inc, null and void

Ruling: The constitution and by-laws of the petitioner association provide that notice of a
special meeting of members should be given at least five days before the date of the meeting. It
appears that the notice was posted on 26 March and the election was set for 28 March.
Therefore, the five days previous notice required would not be complied with.

You might also like